The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Choose my budget console Mixers (Digital)
Old 13th March 2017
  #1
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Choose my budget console

Hey guys and girls,

My Presonus died last weekend, luckily i had a analogue mixibg console in the back but it was much less channels and had only eq.
I never going to buy a studioluve afain because i had it for just 4 years and did 10 gigs with it. My old behringer DDX3216 did 10 years and still worked fine even that i disconnected the annoying fan.

Now i said i never going to get a StudioLive again i mean that.
So i have to find a other one i am looking at some desks... but which one will last longer? And sounds good? (I use it mainly for choirs) other i am on locations were mostly are DigiCo's. But for these rigs i have to bring my own and i never going to earn a digico back. Even if i rent one....

So more hobby duties

My needs are compact, reliable and budget ( rather keep some money left for good mics that i can use for recording where i have more work in) also need at least 24 inputs and would be nice if it is capable of recording (don't care if it would only be a usb harddrive or a computer). Nice would also be controls with an ipad to easily get on stage to eset monitors up.

My list is not complete so if i left something out i would like to know that as well

- Behringer x32 (i know everyone is bad about behringer but i never had a device failed me... ever)
- Soundcraft Si impact
- Allen & Heath qu-24

For now i am leaning to the Allen & Heath.
Old 13th March 2017
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Wyllys's Avatar
 

AJ...

I, too, found the Presonus stuff to be "light duty" and although I was happy with the feature set, I could not depend on it for professional work. That said, I'd carry backup for ANY mission critical piece of gear.

There are SO many small compact digital consoles to choose from these days. I personally went with the Allen & Heath Qu-16 as it fit my needs and use. They have come up with the Qu-pac and Qu-sb models and if I wasn't near retirement I'd go withnthe Qu-pac and a pair of digital stage boxes to be able to xpand to 32 channels.

Other brands are equally capable, but I prefer the A&H topology. A friend who also had a Qu-16 moved to a Midas M32r and is extremely happy with it. He mostly works as a monitor engineer. Another friend went with the X-32 from Behringer and spent a LOT of time keeping his routing straight. He may have outgrown the initial difficulties.

Soundcraft has some nice offerings...and some abject failures. Yamaha has some pro stuff and some absolute toys on the level of the Presonus. One nice thing is that with most of the new stuff you can download the remote app and run it in DEMO mode to get a feel for the operation. As to sound quality they're all acceptable. Ease of use and suitability to your particular usage would be my primary concerns.

Good luck.
Old 13th March 2017
  #3
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Thanks for your reply!

I was very dissapointed in the Presonus and i was up and running in 7 minutes and then cutting 8 mics and had 3 different monitor mixes back again too so it was not a hugh problem but it is just that i did not expect it from a piece of hardware that ran not more then 300 hours. Too bad i bought is 4 years ago and i googled and it could be the psu but it costs me €700 or so to let it fixed and then ... do i trust it again?

They are on their 3rd series in 5 years or something also not a good thing ... well maybe they are now better.... in serie 3 ������

No i think i go for the A&H or Soundcraft i still use some old analogie mixers in a little theater that are still running for 15 years... however analogue is less stuff that can break but still.

Thanks for your reply i will look into those extra and i will check some app's (really great point!)
I think the good Yamaha's are oit of budget it is close to DigiCo... the cheap one's i don't like them and some are rather old technique too.

I read good things about the x32 and also the suport of Behringer the ones that died are replaced with new boards by Behringer that is good service that is also worth something but still doubt it... i am more and more leaning to the Soundcraft Si impact because of flexibility compared to the Qu-24 but also the X32 compact with an extra stagebox looks great, compact and still 32 channels.... (if i'm right)

Last edited by ajschot; 14th March 2017 at 03:31 PM..
Old 14th March 2017
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Aisle 6's Avatar
Out of the consoles listed, I would pick the Qu24.
Old 15th March 2017
  #5
Lives for gear
 

What will you be doing with the console?

I note that everyone is telling you the answer without asking the question. It is like saying "I need a vehicle, what would you suggest"?
Old 15th March 2017
  #6
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEng View Post
I note that everyone is telling you the answer without asking the question. It is like saying "I need a vehicle, what would you suggest"?
Quite, all three are completely capable. You need to consider your workflow, what expansion options you need, and how much flexibility you need. I've put down a few thoughts below that might help your exploration.

X32 gives you many configuration options, which can be confusing to the new user, but lets you do a lot if you need to. Cheap remote stageboxes, cheap personal mixing solution. Android and iPad remote control

Soundcraft Si Impact very simple to walk up to. Pricier remote stageboxes, no personal mixing solution. iPad remote only.

A&H QU - easy walk up. No scribble strips. Remote stageboxes & personal mixing. Android and iPad remote control.
Old 16th March 2017
  #7
Here for the gear
 

Midas M32R is now only $2k. Simply amazing clean audio with headroom. Also Uli mentioned they are currently working on a new USB card for the X32/M32 series soon for release. The card will offer direct 32 track recording directly to a USB drive.
Old 16th March 2017
  #8
Lives for gear
 
GZsound's Avatar
I have been using my QSC Touchmix 16 for several months now and would not hesitate to recommend it as a budget mixer. I don't need remote mixing capabilities even though it has built in WiFi. I found it to be easy to learn and very easy to use. I replaced an Allen & Heath Mixwizard with the QSC unit.
Old 16th March 2017
  #9
Lives for gear
There are a few Century mixers on ebay that are good bang/buck.

Stay away from digital mixers if you can. They are great for the utility and for live and bang/buck. The EQ's and summing on them tend to not sound as good as analog. And they depreciate fast. On that note, older high end digital mixers can be had for cheap.

And no matter what, the thing you are getting with a mixer is the EQ's. If the EQ's sound good, the mixer is good. If the EQ's sound bad, the mixer is bad. That simple.
Old 16th March 2017
  #10
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlecSp View Post
Quite, all three are completely capable. You need to consider your workflow, what expansion options you need, and how much flexibility you need. I've put down a few thoughts below that might help your exploration.

X32 gives you many configuration options, which can be confusing to the new user, but lets you do a lot if you need to. Cheap remote stageboxes, cheap personal mixing solution. Android and iPad remote control

Soundcraft Si Impact very simple to walk up to. Pricier remote stageboxes, no personal mixing solution. iPad remote only.

A&H QU - easy walk up. No scribble strips. Remote stageboxes & personal mixing. Android and iPad remote control.
First I use it mainly for choir festivals, a cappella, , with piano, band or tape.
Like i wrote before compact is a pre, also good reverb, robust (not in the sameplace!) so i need minimal 24 channels (i had a Studiolive 24.4.2 that died too fast). Before that i had a DDX3216 and worked with DigiCo SD11, SD9, Yamaha LS9, 01V96 and iLive-80 so i know my way in digital mixing.

I use iPad so i don't care there is noAndroid app but it is only easy for fine tuning monitors (EQ, compressor etc) for mixing FOH it is not being used... with my hands (have always moit hands) it is not fun to only mix on iPad also... you are always late....
Old 16th March 2017
  #11
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEng View Post
What will you be doing with the console?

I note that everyone is telling you the answer without asking the question. It is like saying "I need a vehicle, what would you suggest"?

Like i wrote, mainly choirs with or withouth bands sometimes with tape, FOH & Monitoring on 1 desk on different locations so must be compact (stageboxes are not always more compact than a 30m 16channel snake.....)
Also must be in a budget otherwise i would take an DigiCO for sure
Old 16th March 2017
  #12
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by proaudio4 View Post
Midas M32R is now only $2k. Simply amazing clean audio with headroom. Also Uli mentioned they are currently working on a new USB card for the X32/M32 series soon for release. The card will offer direct 32 track recording directly to a USB drive.
Thanks i first though about it but not on my list.

1) M32R is not looking so compact, bigger than others, specially with a case, the backside is to high

2) Also M32R is in europe really more expensive than all others, and it feels like buying a Behringer with a fancier brand printed on it.

The record thing is a big plus, only you need really fast USB drives (well all harddrives will do) but with a computer is for me fine too. Also like the Dante option to use with for instance a laptop and waves would be fun and still record 32 channels via USB that would be fantastic. But how trusty is the x32....? and how sounds the EQ, and other FX?

Last edited by ajschot; 16th March 2017 at 11:39 AM..
Old 16th March 2017
  #13
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post
There are a few Century mixers on ebay that are good bang/buck.

Stay away from digital mixers if you can. They are great for the utility and for live and bang/buck. The EQ's and summing on them tend to not sound as good as analog. And they depreciate fast. On that note, older high end digital mixers can be had for cheap.

And no matter what, the thing you are getting with a mixer is the EQ's. If the EQ's sound good, the mixer is good. If the EQ's sound bad, the mixer is bad. That simple.
Century mixers are way too big, like i wrote must be compact!

I know, but i can't buy a lot of rack units for all compressors GEQ etc.
Also need to be compact and i need compressors for singers specially becuase most are amature singers and they not have the best techniques so i need compression for them. I know if i pay 3000 for an analogue mixer it sounds better then a digital but i just can't.... also my philosophie is: Best microphone's for the best purpose means you don't need to much EQ i use as less as possible.

Last edited by ajschot; 16th March 2017 at 11:53 AM..
Old 16th March 2017
  #14
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by GZsound View Post
I have been using my QSC Touchmix 16 for several months now and would not hesitate to recommend it as a budget mixer. I don't need remote mixing capabilities even though it has built in WiFi. I found it to be easy to learn and very easy to use. I replaced an Allen & Heath Mixwizard with the QSC unit.
Thanks, i just looked it up. Not enough channels but there is a 30 version that will do.
Looks great only not for my purposes, choir festivals i do i have 5 minutes between choirs to setup all, so bands switch and choirs switch so a touch mixer is maybe not useable i like to have faders because i have mostly wett hands and then touchscreens are not the best for me, but i can try out maybe sometime.
Old 16th March 2017
  #15
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post
There are a few Century mixers on ebay that are good bang/buck.
Stay away from digital mixers if you can.
Funniest response I've seen for a while! Glad you took the time to read where the OP already said he's comfortable with digital and wants a compact package...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajschot View Post
1) M32R is not looking so compact, bigger than others, specially with a case, the backside is to high
2) Also M32R is in europe really more expensive than all others, and it feels like buying a Behringer with a fancier brand printed on it.

...But how trusty is the x32....? and how sounds the EQ, and other FX?
I agree on the M32's big ass - tall mixers in the weekend warrior market do make for what can be an unmanageable size. And, indeed, in Europe the M32 line is still pricey.

As for reliability, I think the general consensus of those who've had them (rather than those who would never buy Behringer) is that they're as good as the rest of the market. EQ & FX are both good. Bear in mind that if you need to buy a stagebox, you could go for the Midas version for relatively little increase in cost which, for your application, you might appreciate the improved analogue/converter stuff.

But I still think you'd be happy with X32/Si Impact/QU relatively equally, so it's more a case of familiarising yourself with their operation and quirks to see which ends up being the best fit.
Old 16th March 2017
  #16
Here for the gear
 

Hello there!

For past years I have worked a lot with QU-16 which I own and X32, but also with Studiolive, Soundcraft SiEx and Yamaha TF.

Both X32 and Qu16 are really nice desks, one have nice features which second doesn't have and contrary. Even know I don't know which one would I choose, I guess it would be dependant of application in which I would need them most. On the other hand I wasn't really pleased with SiEx, it felt strange and had some bugs, same for TF, to me it had complicated menus, but of course I didn't use it as much as X32 and Qu16.

I would suggest you to take Qu or X32 or M32, I think all of those would be nice step up from you current Studiolive, I guarantee. As to which one to choose, I think it would be best to go and try them
Old 16th March 2017
  #17
Gear Maniac
 

I have rather limited experience and fluency with most of the digital desks mentioned, but I've spent lots of time on the SD9/SD11i that appeals to the OP (except for price), so using that as a comparison point . . .

First, I'd think that the requirement for "good reverb" needs some serious consideration, as most the products mentioned here (including Digico) don't deliver it in the box. This means you're looking at i.e. stacking the console on top of a 2-4U effects rack and need the necessary extra I/O . . . which may work against both the budget and rigid requirement for a small footprint.

The main reasons I don't like the ubiquitous X32 is what I consider to be "heirarchy within heirarchy" in many aspects of its operation - i.e. select channel, select EQ band, toggle through EQ modes . . . where all others you simply select the channel and all the EQ controls are in a "flat" heirarchy. The rigid divisions between the bus faders and input faders also make poor use of real-estate, which contributes to the heirarchical problems by frequently requiring more layer-flips for a given number of input channels. These certainly aren't things that one can't get used to, and it is crazy inexpensive . . . but at least for me the price doesn't make up for the idiosyncrasies.

I think A&H Qu series is nice, but if I'm using board-tape and a Sharpie, then I'd personally rather just use an analog console. For me, the biggest advantages of digital consoles are fader-strip layout flexibility, compact size for larger numbers of channels, and session save/recall combined with offline editing. Without displays on the strips, much of this is mooted . . . and the ability to work very quickly on an analog desk feels like a bigger advantage. Same goes for the Soundcraft Si Expression, which seems neck-and-neck with the Qu in most regards. For the OP, it's hard to imagine that a 32-channel Qu would meet the small-footprint requirement -- I'd think one could set up something like a 32-channel LX7 sitting on two 4U effects racks in about the same amount of space, then run high-quality outboard reverb, and some 160A compressors on the groups and certain channels.

The A&H GLD-80 on the other hand is very nice, and I can't say a whole lot bad about it, other than the price as it relates the OP's budget, especially given the requirement for a stagebox. It has kind of a big butt too, if that's a concern. I actually think it compares very favorably to the Digico SD-11i . . . not the same level of processing power or interface capability, but a smoother workflow in many ways. I remember there being an at least some stomachable reverb in there.

The Si Impact actually seems targeted at the GLD, but at a lower price point and a bit more compact. I have yet to actually work with one, so I'd be interested in other's opinions, especially the onboard compression and reverb.
Old 17th March 2017
  #18
Lives for gear
 
mintaka007's Avatar
pros and cons in my experience:

No scribble strips on qu, that puts it out for me. Using multiple layers and sometimes multiple acts in the same show means digital scribbles is a HUGE advantage. Hardware is good, decent workflow, a bit too much menu diving while mixing. Not as fast and intuitive as the soundcraft, but better than the x32.

Soundcraft-great workflow, great sounding board. Set up most like an analog, rarely have to menu dive while mixing. Hardware is in the top of this bunch. Downside-soundcraft software side is lacking. Wireless app is only ios and limited as far as controls, and offline editor is only windows. They are supposedly working on a full software multi platform update, but their track record on the software side isn't good as far as getting things out we want in a timely fashion.

x/m32-as said, the m32 back is too high for the weekend warrior looking for compact. Requires a cumbersome case. Hardware on the x32 is sufficient, as well as the sound, but i think it is behind both the qu and the soundcraft. More feature laden as far as software goes (rta's, personal library saves etc), but end up in a lot of menus while mixing. Still a pretty easy board to run on the fly, but does require a bit of time to get into it.

I have used soundcraft extensively (performer, expression, a little time on an impact), have used the x32 quite a bit, but have only used the qu once. Still have an o 01v96 vcm i use for monitors in the studio, but that board is pretty dated by todays standards and you are constantly in the menus on that guy.

If the x32 producer had digital scribble strips I would have went with it, but alas it does not.

I ended up going with a soundcraft performer 1. I got a demo with 2 mini stagebox 16's, a case, a nice higher end power conditioner/surge protector, a usb madi card, 2 other madi cards (in stageboxes) and a muti-digital card for 2900. Has everything I want and need in a nice small package, can multitrack with it and it all fits in a gigrig I can easily manage myself, truly drop and go. I just wish the soundcraft software division would get off of their butts and catch up to the competition. It is a pleasure to mix on though.

My personal pick in the under 2000 pricerange would be the impact or the x32 just because of the scribble strip issue. Once you get used to having them, it is a pain without them running multiple layers.
Old 17th March 2017
  #19
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mintaka007 View Post
pros and cons in my experience:

No scribble strips on qu, that puts it out for me. Using multiple layers and sometimes multiple acts in the same show means digital scribbles is a HUGE advantage. Hardware is good, decent workflow, a bit too much menu diving while mixing. Not as fast and intuitive as the soundcraft, but better than the x32.
Its worth pointing out though, that with the QU, there are only 3 layers, 1 for inputs, 1 for outputs (and stuff like FX returns) and 1 custom fader layer, so its not like you're going to be paging across inputs all the time, so that may be a workable limitation (unlike the little soundcrafts, where the lack of scribble strips is absolutely unforgivable, and the labeling sucks)

On a personal level, I hate the SI series, I just find them a bit backwards and hate the way basically everything on them feel and think the screen is worse than useless most the time, but that's just me.
Old 17th March 2017
  #20
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkus View Post
I've spent lots of time on the SD9/SD11i that appeals to the OP (except for price), so using that as a comparison point . . .

First, I'd think that the requirement for "good reverb" needs some serious consideration, as most the products mentioned here (including Digico) don't deliver it in the box. This means you're looking at i.e. stacking the console on top of a 2-4U effects rack and need the necessary extra I/O . . . which may work against both the budget and rigid requirement for a small footprint.
Actually, it seems to be the SDs in particular that suck for reverbs - which is surreal given the price range. Don't think anyone's really complained about the reverbs in the XR/Si/QUs. You've got to be pretty obsessive to insist on adding outboard to these.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkus View Post
The main reasons I don't like the ubiquitous X32 is what I consider to be "heirarchy within heirarchy" in many aspects of its operation - i.e. select channel, select EQ band, toggle through EQ modes . . . where all others you simply select the channel and all the EQ controls are in a "flat" heirarchy. The rigid divisions between the bus faders and input faders also make poor use of real-estate, which contributes to the heirarchical problems by frequently requiring more layer-flips for a given number of input channels.
Both of these are the only things I'd love to change on the XR. Fair enough the EQ is the same "one band at a time" on the big boy Midas consoles - doesn't make it right. And more customisable layers would need only a software update to work (albeit that you'd need to re-understand the layer buttons). In fact they could even implement a kind of pop group functionality which would be fantastic. However, it doesn't look like either is going to happend, which I suspect is more of a marketing decision than a technical one.
Old 17th March 2017
  #21
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by azlan121 View Post
On a personal level, I hate the SI series, I just find them a bit backwards and hate the way basically everything on them feel and think the screen is worse than useless most the time, but that's just me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlecSp View Post
However, it doesn't look like either is going to happend, which I suspect is more of a marketing decision than a technical one.
The trouble with both these consoles is the way they were developed.

The Soundcraft Vi6 was a down-engineered version of the Studer Vista (Both brands owned by Harman). If you look at the local rack on a Vi6 it even uses a Studer computer, and it's no coincidence that the screen controls on Vi consoles are known as 'Vistasonics'. It was cheaper to down-engineer their top of the range console than build something from scratch. Then the other Vi's in the range were based on Vi6 technology with reduced surface control. Then the original Si series was some down engineered Vi series. And the new Si series is some down engineered versions of those.

And the same with the M32 and X32. MusicGroup have taken Midas Pro-series digital consoles, and down-engineered them to produce pocket-friendly digital boards. Music Group know better than anyone that selling lots of cheap stuff is a better way to get rich than a few expensive things.

The problem this creates, is where a product should be developed by saying "what can we do to make this better, so that it beats the competition and tells people to buy it" - which you do with your properly developed projects; the manufacturer is instead saying "what can we remove from our proper console, that means the customers for a proper consoles don't simply buy the cheap ones?".

So Soundcraft, or Midas, have to look at their proper desks, work out what the 'Pro' features are, and then deliberately remove as many of them as is practical, so that these consoles don't ever sell in place of their headline products. The problem with approaching things in this way is that really you end up with a race to the bottom, not a race to the top; and the base level products are all missing things from the familiar surfaces that you think they should really have.

The trouble is you have to remember the price tag too. You can't sit there and say "I really with the Si Impact was a bit more like a Vi1, but I'm only prepared to pay Si Impact money for it" because that itself explains why it does not have all the features of a Vi1.
Old 17th March 2017
  #22
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlecSp View Post
Actually, it seems to be the SDs in particular that suck for reverbs - which is surreal given the price range. Don't think anyone's really complained about the reverbs in the XR/Si/QUs. You've got to be pretty obsessive to insist on adding outboard to these.
I would argue you kind of have it backwards there,

take the SD9 for example, it comes it at around £20k retail with a stage rack, its a bit less for the SD11, but all the way to to £100k+ for the SD7, these desks are a serious investment, and are proportionally expensive to hire. They therefore tend to be used on higher end gigs, where the standards and expectations are higher, and there is more likely to be the budget to stick an outboard reverb on a job anyway, whereas with something like a QU or an SI, the reverb basically has to be 'good enough', and people aren't going to want to want to spend 50%+ on the price of the desk on a single outboard FX unit.
Old 17th March 2017
  #23
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by azlan121 View Post
all the way to to £100k+ for the SD7
It isn't £100k for an SD7. It's a fair bit less.

Quote:
more likely to be the budget to stick an outboard reverb on a job anyway
It isn't so much that. But you're half way there. The reason that the SD series Digicos don't have much in the way of good internal FX, is because they were developed with Waves in mind. Digico had a thing going with Waves before the release of the SD consoles, and whilst the original implementation didn't really work out (they wanted them to run native and people just buy an iLok, like on a D-Show), what you eventually ended up with was SoundGrid servers.

The bulk of tours we send out with Digicos go out with a SoundGrid server, to run Waves plugins. It's kind of an industry expectation now that if you tour a Digico you will tour a SoundGrid system for the FX.

But I agree, on lower end consoles the need for good FX is far more important because people are looking for an all-in-one solution and getting the maximum value for money.
Old 17th March 2017
  #24
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by de003 View Post
It isn't £100k for an SD7. It's a fair bit less.
I'm fairly sure last time I was at digico, that was the numbers they were talking about for an SD7 and a couple of SD racks, I was off my tits on painkillers when I was there though, so could be remembering wrong

edit: thinking about it, that would have been for an SD7B, which is obviously a bit more
Old 17th March 2017
  #25
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlecSp View Post
Actually, it seems to be the SDs in particular that suck for reverbs - which is surreal given the price range. Don't think anyone's really complained about the reverbs in the XR/Si/QUs. You've got to be pretty obsessive to insist on adding outboard to these.
My general (albeit limited) experience with the reverbs on both the X32 and the Qu is that of being disappointed, but certainly workable for a smaller band when mixing tastefully on the dry side . . . completely consistent with their cost and intended application.

I made a bit of a stink about the reverb mainly because the OP's application is that of using a substantial number of channels to close-mic a choir. I find that getting a reverb patch that smooths and thickens voices from a large number of channels, without becoming muddy, and sounding natural and blending with the natural reverb of the sorts of venues that host these events . . . that's a pretty tall order. With an X32, Qu, or GLD I'd be doing it the old-fashioned way and bringing outboard effects. I'd be interested if to hear if Harmon has indeed leveraged their ownership of Lexicon to deliver something better on the Si Impact . . . or whether this is simply branding/marketing at work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by de003 View Post
The bulk of tours we send out with Digicos go out with a SoundGrid server, to run Waves plugins. It's kind of an industry expectation now that if you tour a Digico you will tour a SoundGrid system for the FX.
This makes complete sense, but IMO it doesn't really let Digico off the hook for their effects . . . which makes about the closest thing to The Far Side's "Suck Knob" that I've ever seen on a console. I don't like useless stuff cluttering up the GUI (same goes for "DigiTubes"), and I think it undermines the user's perception that they're working with a high-end product.

On the Soundgrid side . . . I only have one reverb plugin that I would be completely happy with for the OP's application (Waves IR). I still find the slow response burdensome when dialing it in, and I suppose this route does have the greater-number-of-instances-per-rack-unit advantage over going outboard, and there's a whole slew of other stuff at my disposal . . . but . . . meah . . . I still personally miss i.e. a PCM90 when I'm working with it.
Old 17th March 2017
  #26
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by azlan121 View Post
I'm fairly sure last time I was at digico, that was the numbers they were talking about for an SD7 and a couple of SD racks, I was off my tits on painkillers when I was there though, so could be remembering wrong

edit: thinking about it, that would have been for an SD7B, which is obviously a bit more
They were probably also talking list price, and nobody pays list price.
Old 17th March 2017
  #27
Gear Maniac
 

Anyway I don't really know why we are discussing the merits of Digico Reverb when the question was relating to replacing a Presonus Studiolive.

It's a bit like somebody asking to replace a Ford Focus they crashed and discussing the merits of Lamborghini air conditioning.
Old 17th March 2017
  #28
Gear Head
 

I'd advice against the QU for your application. Since you know your way around digital consoles, you'll hate the inflexibility. It's channel routing is fixed, and it's overall structure is what you see is what you get. No insert routing or matrixes.

In that price range I'd advocate that the X32 (or X32 compact) is probably the most feature packed of the available options. It's also reliable, despite what some people will have you believe. A lot more reliable compared to anything in that price-range (mass numbers sold and the fault numbers have been staggeringly low from what Ive read).

The SI impact is reliable, but to me the workflow of the interface is a bit slow (especially naming channels). It does give you fully customisable layers though, but no scribble
Old 17th March 2017
  #29
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samlow View Post
In that price range I'd advocate that the X32 (or X32 compact) is probably the most feature packed of the available options.
I agree completely. Despite the bad stigma it gets because of it's brand and it's price, it's a very capable little thing, and has far more features off the higher budget options than anything else of it's price point.

The only thing which has to be said is that if you don't have so many inputs, you could consider the Midas M32R for a similar price, or, spend a bit more and get yourself a full size M32.
Old 18th March 2017
  #30
Lives for gear
 
mintaka007's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samlow View Post
I'd advice against the QU for your application. Since you know your way around digital consoles, you'll hate the inflexibility. It's channel routing is fixed, and it's overall structure is what you see is what you get. No insert routing or matrixes.

In that price range I'd advocate that the X32 (or X32 compact) is probably the most feature packed of the available options. It's also reliable, despite what some people will have you believe. A lot more reliable compared to anything in that price-range (mass numbers sold and the fault numbers have been staggeringly low from what Ive read).

The SI impact is reliable, but to me the workflow of the interface is a bit slow (especially naming channels). It does give you fully customisable layers though, but no scribble
The si impact has digital scribbles, it is the expressions that do not.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump